Quote: (Reuters) - Dr. Joe Casillas, an obstetrician in Southern California, routinely prescribes birth control for his patients. Though he's a practicing Catholic, he doesn't follow his church's stern warning that contraception is a sin. He believes women should have access.

Yet Casillas was dismayed when the Obama administration recently ruled that religious institutions had to follow the same rules as other employers and offer free contraception as part of health insurance coverage. The idea that the government would force Catholic hospitals to subsidize birth control - or, to avoid the mandate, drop health insurance for their employees - appalled him.

Now Casillas, a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, says he is not at all sure he can back the president for a second term. "It's given me pause," he said.

Similar shockwaves are reverberating across the country, as Obama's refusal to exempt religious employers from this provision of his health-care law has deeply angered many Catholics - who will make up a crucial, and unpredictable, chunk of the electorate in the November presidential election.

About one in four U.S. voters is Catholic and as a group they have swung back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.
In recent days, the administration has said it is willing to work with religious institutions to find ways to cover contraception without violating principles of faith. But no concrete plans for compromise have emerged.

The protest has been led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which encouraged parish priests from coast to coast to read aloud fiery letters denouncing the federal policy during Mass. "It is hard not to see this new mandate as a direct attack on Catholic consciences and the freedom of our Catholic institutions," Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez wrote in one such letter of protest.

The bishops also urged the faithful to bombard Congress and the White House with complaints. By Tuesday, more than 23,000 people had signed an online petition demanding that the rule be overturned.

Gotta say I'm not sure exactly which fundamental Constitutional right is violated by requiring all organizations to provide the same thing to all their employees.

I can imagine Christian Scientists refusing to provide any health insurance at all to employees, regardless of the employee's religious affiliation. That OK?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Mandating that a religious organization take part in a HC plan which fully funds abortion and contraception coverage isn't in violation between church and state ? Or religious freedom? Even Left wing Catholics don't agree with ya, or Obama, on this matter.

And yes, to your CS question. That is ok. Don't like it ? Don't be a Christian Scientist. There's no law stating you HAVE to join a church. Yet.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Quote:Originally posted by Storymark:
Such horseshit. But of course Rappy will carry on the talking point.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

" talking points " ?

Too gorram funny.

Quote:Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn't Have Voted for Obamacare If I'd Known About HHS Regulation

Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010. She lost her seat that November in part because of her controversial support of Obamacare. But Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Ridiculous issue. Something that seems to be missing here, unless I missed it. The original law is that RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (i.e., churches) are exampt from the requirement; it is OTHER organizations--universities, hospitals, nonprofits, charities, etc., who have religious AFFILIATIONS, who need to comply.

Quote:Churches are exempted from a U.S. rule requiring coverage of contraceptives under an Obama administration decision that forces their affiliated schools and hospitals to begin providing birth control in 18 months. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-20/churches-to-be-exempt-from-u-s-contraception-coverage-rule.html religiously-affiliated organizations are not churches. Many of them receive money from the government, so it's only right that the government should have a say in whether their employees get equal treatment under the law.

If the organization wants to receive no state/federal funding, that would be one thing, tho' even then I would have questions about it. But it's not about churches, missions, or other purely religious organizations.

Just as a point,

Quote:.... in recent polls, about 95 percent of Catholics have said they use contraceptives and 89 percent say the decision to use them should be theirs, not the church's http://eastmeadow.patch.com/articles/poll-should-religious-organizations-be-exempt-from-the-government-s-birth-control-mandate the Bishops who run The Church (whichever one, but mostly the Catholic Church)--males--are pissed off that organizations not inside The Church which receive funding from the government shouldn't have to provide contraception via health insurance, when virtually every other employer does. They want to decide that EVEN FOR THEIR PARISHONERS who are employed by employers OUTSIDE The Church.

AND to clarify, saying they have to provide health insurance which pays for "abortions" is a flat-out lie. Abortions don't come into it at ALL; it's about contraception, nothing more.

It's exactly like that kerfluffle about pharmacists not having to fill prescripions for birth control because it's "against their conscience". Don't want contraception in your health plan? Don't work for Church-SPONSORED organizations. I'd posit that the vast majority of women working for these organizations are grateful they will get the same rights as other employers provide.

On top of all this, the Obama Administration is open to finding some form of compromise which will less offend The Church, which you can bet your booties NONE of the Republican candidates would even consider if the situation were reversed.

Screw the "War on Religion"--there is no such thing. Screw the "War on Christmas"--there is no such thing. But there's an increasing war on WOMEN and their right to make decisions about their own bodies.

Screw the "War on Religion"--there is no such thing. Screw the "War on Christmas"--there is no such thing. But there's an increasing war on WOMEN and their right to make decisions about their own bodies.

And by sheer coincidence, you're anti the first 2, so clearly, " there is no such thing". But gosh almighty, you're convinced there's a 'war on women', and lo and behold... it MUST be !

What ARE the odds ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mandating that a religious organization take part in a HC plan which fully funds abortion and contraception coverage isn't in violation between church and state ? Or religious freedom?

I don't see it as being so. Part of "freedom of religion" is "Freedom from religion".

The Obama administration is saying that your religion can't deny something mandated by law to folks who don't follow your religion (or even those that do, and want it), just because it doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Quote:And yes, to your CS question. That is ok. Don't like it ? Don't be a Christian Scientist.

So what if you're not a Christian Scientist, but are the secretary in a Reading Room? Should you lose access to part of the health insurance mandated for everyone else by the government because of your bosses beliefs?

Now if you want to argue the merits of government-mandated health insurance, that's another thing entirely. But forcing people to toe some religions line due to who their employer is seems to me to be the violation the First Amendment.

Where did you ever get the idea I was "anti" religion OR Xmas? That is not just a lie, it's a transparent one. If you don't know perfectly well that it's a lie, then you've not been paying attention. You are reeeeely reaching, kid, go poke someone else. That's as much time as I'll give you.

Wait; for the sake of others who might actually BELIEVE your bullshit, I'll refute the lie specifically. I'm buddhist, that's my "religion" if you will, so I can't very well be against religion, can I? I'm against ORGANIZED religions which abuse their power...not all do, and I'm quick to say there are many good things about religion...tho' given the word "religion" is used to mean "organized religion", I would say "faith".

And how am I anti-Xmas?? I don't call it Christmas out of (in my view) respect for those who view it as that; I don't "worship" Christ (tho' I certainly believe in him), so for me Xmas isn't a Mass for Christ...but then it isn't for the vast majority of people all over America. It's become an excuse (nay, a NEED!) for buying useless gifts for people who probably don't want them and a profit-making enterprise for big business, but it gives people pleasure, so I have no argument with that. Period.

Which kinds of controception would be covered? I know very few people who are opposed to preventative controception, morning after stuff is more controversial but anything that prevents fertilization is seen as okay by basically everyone I know (I've never asked my grandma and she's probably the only person I know who might be opposed.)

The Catholic Church is opposed to all forms of birth control, including condoms, the pill, IUD's, caps etc etc. They do tolerate natural family planning, which is basically only having sex during certain parts of a woman's cycle - what used to be called the rhythm method.

Q. What do you call couples who use natural family planning?
A. Parents.

Basically church doctrine says that sex is for procreation only and that contraception is evil. It is a world defined by single males who claim to abstain from all sexual activity. This organisation is basically some medievel throwback and should be ignored, as far as I am concerned.

Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire:
I know that is the official position, but I bet most of them don't follow that rule, otherwise the couples aren't having near enough sex for fear of too many babies.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Well, I think that's their point, that you can have all the sex you want, if you're married. Just be ready to deal w/ the consequences of an ever expanding family. It kinda comes w/ the territory of being a Catholic. And say all you want about how 'unhealthy' it is for a marriage to have little/ no sex, but then you're not being a Catholic. Don't agree ? Don't be a part of the HRCC. Pretty simple, actually.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

This s an interesting issue. It comes down to the idea that separation of church and state runs in both directions.

It would be unconstitutional for the govt to order a noncatholic to accept and abide by the rules of the catholic faith.

It is equally unconstitutional for the govt to order Catholics or their church to abandon or ignore the rules of its faith.

That's why the Amish can't be drafted and why women can't sue for discrimination for not being allowed to be priests.

It's surprising Obama hasn't given in on this, the caselaw is pretty clear and goes back a LONG way. Also he just pissed off a lot of people and handed the Republicans a wedge issue they were lacking with Hispanics.

"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry _________________The more we are protected, the more we are trapped within. -P. Gabriel----Nothin' worse than a monster who thinks he's right with god. -Mal

Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire:
Which kinds of controception would be covered? I know very few people who are opposed to preventative controception, morning after stuff is more controversial but anything that prevents fertilization is seen as okay by basically everyone I know (I've never asked my grandma and she's probably the only person I know who might be opposed.)

Hah, reminds me when I got married my grandma wanted to know what I was using, which is funny now-not so funny then.

We did have a conversation the other day, though, about the many Catholic women she knew and she said even back in the day they were all on birth control, none had more than a couple kids...so yeah, I think most of Catholism is forcing women to be hypocrites, and I'm sure making sure things are even-steven is gonna make life easier for them too...

I wonder how many catholic women have had complications of birth control and had to lie that off, or took that as a sign from god??

Obama is a straight out eugenicist. His aim is to collapse the population by lowering the growth rate from its already non-sustaining value towards zero. Every action he takes in healthcare is motivated in this direction. That's why there's a per child cost mandated, and why he's ramping up sex laws, and offering free anti-reproductive services. As our population shrinks, we will be replaced by cheap immigrant labor, but I don't hold that against them, it's not their fault, and when they come here, eventually they will also fall under the boot.

It's one of many areas he's very wrong, like the environment, the war, and the whole police state thing he has going on. (oh, and his war on the internet, and globalism) Err., I don't really see any reason to support this guy. I'm still waiting for a viable alternative.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
. . . you can have all the sex you want, if you're married. Just be ready to deal w/ the consequences of an ever expanding family. It kinda comes w/ the territory of being a Catholic. And say all you want about how 'unhealthy' it is for a marriage to have little/ no sex, but then you're not being a Catholic. Don't agree ? Don't be a part of the HRCC. Pretty simple, actually.

"Pretty simple, actually" to quote AURaptor, who isn't going far enough or simple enough. I shall courageously go all the way to the place AURaptor has, so far, feared to go.

According to Genesis, Chapter 38, Onan's refusal to reproduce with his brother's widow was Evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He put him to death as illustrated below. The Catholic hierarchy ought to be freely allowed to execute Catholics practicing birth control, otherwise it is an unconstitutional restriction on religion. Obama is violating the separation of Church and State. I anticipate calls for his impeachment from AURaptor because it is the right thing to do.

And why is AURaptor not demanding execution of Christians who practice birth control? The Bible tells us that is the Lord's Will.

From The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb (2009), Chapter 38.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

Why would I care what the Bible says on such matters? I've clearly explained that the idea of such taboos and religious rules predates religion itself. You've just wasted your time, my time, and anyone who bothered reading your post.

I'll say it again. If YOU want to live as the HRCC decrees, by all means, go for it. But the Federal govt has no right to force any organization opposed to birth control to have to PAY for it as a part of their health care. It's really THAT simple.

How are you not getting this ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
. . .the Federal govt has no right to force any organization opposed to birth control to have to PAY for it as a part of their health care. It's really THAT simple.

Obama wants to remove one line from health insurance policies: “Birth control is not covered.” It's really THAT simple.

If Freedom of Religion meant what you imagine it does, then polygamy would still be legal for Mormons in the US, just as an example. All this Freedom of Religion talk is what is known in law as “hot air.”

The Catholic Church thinks it is being so clever and subtle in this legal debate by declaring it is all about the Church's Freedom of Religion. What the Church is doing is holding back money to motivate employees to not practice birth control -- if the employees don't like it, then they can quit the job or pay. The Church is using its superior position to bully its employees, much like the Alliance would. It is legal judo: the poor, oppressed, helpless Church is pretending its Freedom is being restricted by Obama, when it is really the Church oppressing the weak and poor.

Obama is not ordering that Holy Communion consist of the Eucharist and the Pill. That would be outrageous.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

And on to the argument - but all those taboos are different. In some cultures you must marry your cousins to preserve the bloodline. Cousins account for 10% of all marriages worldwide, 50% in the Middle East. Men and women freely cohabit with the same sex in many cultures, without stigma. In some cultures you can't eat pork, in others it's beef, in others it's meat. In some cultures you can't eat during the day for a whole month, in others you must be vegetarian for a whole month.

There are all sorts of marriage restrictions and permissions, food restrictions and permissions, clothing restrictions and permissions, housing restrictions and permissions, and many other types of restrictions and permissions, and they are all different and equally arbitrary.

You can't point to the Bible as being the authority for your particular biases, and you can't point to human nature either as if it contained some kind of innate code. Looking around the globe and across time, some kind of innate code doesn't prove out.

The ORIGINS of religious rules... get it ? If you've followed the thread, it's clear that what I meant. Observations are made, tribal elders seek to avoid problems from happening again, so they make such things taboo, forbidden. And as time goes on, these customs are incorporated into religious doctrine, giving the 'elders, priests,etc... ' all the more weight and power to lay down the law, because GOD sez don't do it, so everyone MUST follow, or die.

But back to the original point, I see no constitutional basis for the govt telling ANY insurance company that it MUST pay for birth control or viagara. Anyone wants those particular items or services , they should be forced to pay for it out of pocket.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
But back to the original point, I see no constitutional basis for the govt telling ANY insurance company that it MUST pay for birth control or viagara. Anyone wants those particular items or services , they should be forced to pay for it out of pocket.

Probably should have stated it that way in the original post, without muddying the waters with the 'religious' argument.

As to constitutional basis, we'll see - when any of the numerous challanges to Obama's health care bill get to the Supremem Court.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
But back to the original point, I see no constitutional basis for the govt telling ANY insurance company that it MUST pay for birth control or viagara. Anyone wants those particular items or services , they should be forced to pay for it out of pocket.

The Catholic Church should get out of the health insurance business by increasing employees' pay so employees can buy their own insurance. The price will be high because it will be no-longer a group policy. Everyone is on their own. Church's "conscience" is clear and everybody gets a raise. It's a win-win! Except the Church wants a cost-free solution, which explains what it is doing in the court of public opinion. The Freedom of Religion talk is smokescreen for the money problem the Church has.

USA has an insurance system where there are large tax benefits to employers, compensating for health care benefits, and then government regulations about the details. A government financed effort to tax-subsidize contraceptives winds up involving employers as a pass-through entity in a basically superfluous way, thus raising an issue of "conscience" that would be completely avoidable in a simpler system.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

"But back to the original point, I see no constitutional basis for the govt telling ANY insurance company that it MUST pay for birth control or viagara (sic)."

They are legal medical services like any other legal medical service. The only reason to treat them differently is for religious or cultural reasons, which the government is not mandated to enforce - in fact, the government is forbidden from doing so by enforcing one set of preferences over another. In the broad sense, if the government is able to enforce one type of coverage for one type of legal medical service, then it is able to enforce others as well.

Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:
But back to the original point, I see no constitutional basis for the govt telling ANY insurance company that it MUST pay for birth control or viagara. Anyone wants those particular items or services , they should be forced to pay for it out of pocket.

Probably should have stated it that way in the original post, without muddying the waters with the 'religious' argument.

As to constitutional basis, we'll see - when any of the numerous challanges to Obama's health care bill get to the Supremem Court.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

It's the Obama admin and o-care that's muddying the waters here.

These extra services aren't denied by anyone if they're catholic, jew, muslim, or what ever. They're just out of pocket expense, which imo, should apply for EVERYONE. But what Obama is doing is enforcing secular rules on religious groups, and forcing them to pay for services they find against their views.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

"One, the idea that viagra, cialas, abortion, contraception , or any such related things should be covered on anyone's 'health insurance'."

Ahem - again, they are legal medical services. If arbitrary exclusions can be made for some legal medical services, why not others? How about excluding heart disease? Cancer? Ingrown toenails? What is the basis to exclude some things and not others?

"Two, the federal govt telling any religious organization that it MUST cover those things on its hc coverage, regardless of that organizations religious views."

B/c the government pays a kick-back to the organizations for health insurance? And when the government is providing the money it gets to say how it's spent?

You can (ahem) say they are legal medical services until the cows come home, but so the hell what ?

It's not a legitimate health insurance item. None of them are. Doesn't mean you can't go out and pay for those things, out of pocket, just like you would any other non essential item. Or is that too much for you to comprehend ?

It's arbitrary INCLUSIONS like these which are part of why healthcare is so damned expensive.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Or nekkid lady silhouette mud flaps for your pick up truck ? I mean, all those things are " perfectly legal items', right ?

good grief...

Since Federal tax laws are subsidizing health insurance, the Federal Government can say how that money is spent. Obama wants one line removed from health insurance policies: “Birth control is excluded from coverage.”

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

But they aren't related to accidents and accidental damage, hence, not covered by insurance for accidents and accidental damage.

OTOH Pap smears, birth control, mammograms and breast exams and mastectomies, and prenatal care are all in the same range of legitimate legal medical care to provide diagnosis, prevention and treatment. At worst in terms of coverage, abortion might be considered elective surgery. Why include some and not others? And prostate exams and PSA tests, prostatectomies and treatments for ED are all in the same range of legitimate legal medical care to provide diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Why include some and not others?

We import people. That's why the population isn't falling. I meant to say our birth rate. Particularly here, it's tragically low. I don't have any more of a sense of humor about it than I have about the holocaust, and I'm not about to forgive its perps, or their sympathizers.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Quote:"It's not a legitimate health insurance item. None of them are."

Hello,

What a bizarre stance. If your arm or your leg was not working properly, you would want your insurance to treat the problem.

But if your penis is malfunctioning, you consider this... what? A cosmetic item?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

I can see both sides of this issue (as long as they aren't forced to cover abortion).

So I would definitely say that birth control is more important than viagra, if someone covers viagra they better cover birth control, because he'll have so much stammina that they'll have way more sex and she'll definitely get pregnant. And if you have an irection that lasts more than four hours ... its going to be weird. :)

As for Catholics not having sex, that's a bad idea for everyone because then couples are like ... boring.

Really these issues demonstrate why religious institutions should stick to having prayer meetings and mass and get the hell out of services that require 21st scientific methodology, including provision of medical services. It's actually a wonderful argument in favour of governments funding secular public health treatment.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

Hello,

Is there a copy of this illustrated Bible online somewhere?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... enough w/ this "They are ALL legitimate legal medical care" crap! THAT IS NOT THE GORRAM ISSUE!!!"

It's not? We are talking about medical insurance for medical care, are we not?

No, and that's the entire point I'm making.

Hard on pills and free contraception aren't " medical care ". It's ridiculous to try to claim these things as being on par w/ a chest cold or a sprained ankle.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.